\documentclass{beamer}
\setbeamertemplate{navigation symbols}{}
\usetheme{Warsaw}

\AtBeginSection[]
{
   \begin{frame}
       \frametitle{Outline}
       \tableofcontents[currentsection]
   \end{frame}
}

\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
\usepackage{default}
\usepackage{comment}
\usepackage{url}
\usepackage[natbib=true, citestyle=authoryear-comp]{biblatex}
\usepackage{multirow}

\bibliography{biblio}

\begin{document}

\title{Analysis of \\
  \emph{An architecture for action selection in robotic soccer}\\
  (2001, Stone, P. and McAllester, D.)}
\author{Daniel Silva, Nguyen Cu and Joseph Chege}
\date{\today}

\begin{frame}
\titlepage
\end{frame}

\begin{comment}

\end{comment}

\section{Introduction}

\begin{frame}
  \frametitle{Ideas}
  In (\cite{stone2001architecture}), the authors describe key elements in \textbf{ATT-CMUnited-2000} strategy:
  \begin{itemize}
    \item Option evaluation architecture
    \item Leading passes (LP)
    \item Efficient numerical algorithm
    \item Force fields (FF)
  \end{itemize}
  Our goal is to incorporate \emph{Leading passes} and \emph{Force fields} in WrightEagle's RoboCup client \cite{bai2010wrighteagle}.
\end{frame}

\section{Implementation}

\begin{frame}
  \frametitle{WrightEagle}
  Like in \cite{stone2001architecture}, WrightEagle uses an \emph{Option evaluation architecture}. Different options are planned, scored and compared. They are called \emph{Behaviors}, there are four main \emph{Behaviors}:
  \begin{itemize}
    \item \emph{BehaviorPenaltyPlanner}
    \item \emph{BehaviorSetplayPlanner}
    \item \emph{BehaviorAttackPlanner}
    \item \emph{BehaviorDefensePlanner}
  \end{itemize}
\end{frame}

\begin{frame}
  \frametitle{WrightEagle}
  Each behavior may be composed of other behaviors.
  \begin{itemize}
    \item \emph{BehaviorAttackPlanner}
    \begin{itemize}
      \item \emph{BehaviorInterceptPlanner}
      \item \emph{BehaviorShootPlanner}
      \item \emph{BehaviorPassPlanner}
      \item \emph{BehaviorDribblePlanner}
      \item \emph{BehaviorPositionPlanner}
      \item \emph{BehaviorHoldPlanner}
    \end{itemize}
    \item \emph{BehaviorDefensePlanner}
    \begin{itemize}
      \item \emph{BehaviorFormationPlanner}
      \item \emph{BehaviorBlockPlanner}
      \item \emph{BehaviorMarkPlanner}
    \end{itemize}
  \end{itemize}
\end{frame}

\begin{frame}
  \frametitle{Leading passes}
  We altered \emph{BehaviorPass.cpp} to take into account nearby opponents and slightly change the angle of the pass
  \begin{figure}[ht!]
    \centering
    \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{pass2.png}
    \caption{Passing with an opponent nearby.}
    \label{fig:pass}
  \end{figure}
\end{frame}

\begin{frame}
  \frametitle{Force fields}
  As described in \cite{stone2001architecture} force fields are divided into two categories:
  \begin{itemize}
    \item Strategic: applies to players far from the ball;
    \begin{itemize}
      \item $B$: bounds-repellent, strong when players are within 5 meters of the edge of the field;
      \item $O$: offside-repellent, causes player to retreat if the opponent's offside line is within 5 meters;
      \item $S$: inter-player force, attractive when players are slightly more than 20 meters apart and repulsive if they are closer.
    \end{itemize}
  \end{itemize}
\end{frame}

\begin{frame}
  \frametitle{Force fields}
  \begin{itemize}
    \item Tactical: applies to players near the ball;
    \begin{itemize}
      \item  $T$: repulsive force between offensive players, strong when the ball is within 8 meters;
      \item  $C$: repulsive force between players and opponents, also called get clear, its strength is proportional to the likehood that the pass will be intercepted by a defender.
    \end{itemize}
  \end{itemize}
\end{frame}

\section{Results}

\begin{frame}
  \frametitle{Measures}
  We compare results by: score, ball possession and successful passes.
  \begin{itemize}
    \item Score: number of goals from each side in the match;
    \item Ball possession: if a member of the team is the closest to the ball and closest opponent is at least 1 meter away;
    \item Successful passes: if a pass is executed and the team has possession of the ball at least 10 time units afterwards (otherwise you are dribbling) and at most 15 time units (otherwise you recovered a ball that was intercepted).
  \end{itemize}
\end{frame}

\begin{frame}
 \frametitle{Logging}
  \begin{itemize}
    \item For ball possession we need to know the distance to the ball and to the closest opponent for every player. So we altered \emph{BehaviorPenaltyPlanner}, since it is the first behavior every player plans. Example:
    \begin{itemize}
      \item dgk possession (50:0) 6 20.1804 2.31076 18.2865
      \item Time, player number, distance player-ball, ball-opponent and player-opponent;
    \end{itemize}
    \item For successful passes we need to know if and when a pass was executed so we altered \emph{BehaviorPassExecuter::Execute}. Example:
    \begin{itemize}
      \item dgk execute\_pass (50:0)
      \item Time.
    \end{itemize}
  \end{itemize}
\end{frame}

\begin{frame}
  \frametitle{Performance}
  30 games were played:
  \begin{itemize}
    \item 10 where two WrightEagle clients played against each other without any of our modifications;
    \item 10 with LP only;
    \item 10 with LP and FF control.
  \end{itemize}
\end{frame}

\begin{frame}
  \frametitle{Performance}
  \begin{columns}
    \begin{column}{0.5\textwidth}
      \begin{table}[!ht]
	\centering
	\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|}
	  \hline
	  Game & Score & BP & SP \\ \hline
	  1 & 4 - 5 & 41\% & 71\% \\ \hline
	  2 & 3 - 1 & 47\% & 77\% \\ \hline
	  3 & 1 - 0 & 41\% & 73\% \\ \hline
	  4 & 7 - 5 & 46\% & 78\% \\ \hline
	  5 & 5 - 6 & 41\% & 77\% \\ \hline
	  6 & 3 - 5 & 43\% & 67\% \\ \hline
	  7 & 4 - 2 & 42\% & 79\% \\ \hline
	  8 & 5 - 6 & 41\% & 70\% \\ \hline
	  9 & 5 - 4 & 42\% & 79\% \\ \hline
	  10 & 1 - 4 & 38\% & 71\% \\ \hline
	\end{tabular}
	\caption{Unmodified clients results.}
	\label{tab:control}
      \end{table}
    \end{column}
    \begin{column}{0.5\textwidth}
      \begin{table}[!ht]
	\centering
	\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|}
	  \hline
	  Game & Score & BP & SP \\ \hline
	  1 & 1 - 3 & 40\% & 70\% \\ \hline
	  2 & 3 - 2 & 38\% & 70\% \\ \hline
	  3 & 3 - 7 & 37\% & 69\% \\ \hline
	  4 & 6 - 3 & 41\% & 78\% \\ \hline
	  5 & 7 - 6 & 42\% & 72\% \\ \hline
	  6 & 8 - 5 & 36\% & 70\% \\ \hline
	  7 & 0 - 1 & 36\% & 66\% \\ \hline
	  8 & 3 - 5 & 39\% & 75\% \\ \hline
	  9 & 7 - 3 & 39\% & 75\% \\ \hline
	  10 & 5 - 8 & 36\% & 79\% \\ \hline
	\end{tabular}
	\caption{LP only.}
	\label{tab:passOnly}
      \end{table}
    \end{column}
  \end{columns}
\end{frame}

\begin{frame}
  \frametitle{Performance}
  \begin{columns}
    \begin{column}{0.5\textwidth}
      \begin{table}[!ht]
	\centering
	\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|}
	  \hline
	  Game & Score & BP & SP \\ \hline
	  1 & 4 - 5 & 41\% & 71\% \\ \hline
	  2 & 3 - 1 & 47\% & 77\% \\ \hline
	  3 & 1 - 0 & 41\% & 73\% \\ \hline
	  4 & 7 - 5 & 46\% & 78\% \\ \hline
	  5 & 5 - 6 & 41\% & 77\% \\ \hline
	  6 & 3 - 5 & 43\% & 67\% \\ \hline
	  7 & 4 - 2 & 42\% & 79\% \\ \hline
	  8 & 5 - 6 & 41\% & 70\% \\ \hline
	  9 & 5 - 4 & 42\% & 79\% \\ \hline
	  10 & 1 - 4 & 38\% & 71\% \\ \hline
	\end{tabular}
	\caption{Unmodified clients results.}
	\label{tab:control}
      \end{table}
    \end{column}
    \begin{column}{0.5\textwidth}
      \begin{table}[!ht]
	\centering
	\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|}
	  \hline
	  Game & Score & BP & SP \\ \hline
	  1 & 1 - 5 & 44\% & 73\% \\ \hline
	  2 & 0 - 2 & 41\% & 74\% \\ \hline
	  3 & 2 - 4 & 40\% & 70\% \\ \hline
	  4 & 0 - 2 & 40\% & 73\% \\ \hline
	  5 & 4 - 4 & 43\% & 71\% \\ \hline
	  6 & 1 - 1 & 42\% & 77\% \\ \hline
	  7 & 4 - 3 & 41\% & 71\% \\ \hline
	  8 & 1 - 3 & 39\% & 70\% \\ \hline
	  9 & 1 - 4 & 42\% & 65\% \\ \hline
	  10 & 2 - 2 & 47\% & 74\% \\ \hline
	\end{tabular}
	\caption{LP and FF.}
	\label{tab:passFF}
      \end{table}
    \end{column}
  \end{columns}
\end{frame}

\section{Discussion}

\begin{frame}
  \frametitle{Analysis}
  Applying the paired \emph{t-test} yields the following \emph{t} and \emph{p} values:
  \begin{table}[!ht]
    \centering
    \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|}
      \hline
      \multirow{2}{*}{Feature} & \multirow{2}{*}{Control-LP} & \multirow{2}{*}{Control-LP/FF} & LP-LP/FF \\
      & & & (performance) \\ \hline
      Score & 0.00, 1.00 & 1.83, 0.08 & 1.38, 0.18 \\ \hline
      Ball possession & 3.53, 0.00 & 0.27, 0.79 & -3.47, 0.00 \\ \hline
      Successful passes & 0.95, 0.36 & 1.41, 0.18 & 0.36, 0.72 \\ \hline
    \end{tabular}
    \caption{\emph{p-values}.}
  \end{table}
  LP changed ball possession while LP/FF changed score, unfortunately for the worse, but ball possession of LP/FF is significantly better than LP's.
\end{frame}

\begin{frame}
  \frametitle{Conclusion}
  \begin{itemize}
    \item The modifications suggested in the article are too shallow for WrightEagle, article is from 2001 and client is from 2010;
    \item Force fields control compromises performance of \emph{BehaviorSetplayPlanner} which is probably responsible for the
  majority of goals. Most goals are scored when a pass is made from one of the corner of the goal to a teammate in the center, that just kicks the ball forward, fields \emph{B} and \emph{O} push the teammate away from the goal in that situation.
  \end{itemize}
\end{frame}

\frame{\printbibliography}

\end{document}